The Heartland Institute — a self-described “think tank” that actually serves in part as a way for climate change denialism to get funded — has a potentially embarrassing situation on their hands. Someone going by the handle “Heartland Insider” has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland, revealing the Institute’s strategies, funds, and much more.

Ooh, do please go on.

Quote:

One thing I want to point out right away which is very illuminating, if highly disturbing, about what Heartland allegedly wants to do: they are considering developing a curriculum for teachers to use in the classroom to sow confusion about climate change. I know, it sounds like I’m making that up, but I’m not. In this document they say:

"[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science."

Ah, so there we have it. In black and white. How embarrassing. This just confirms what many of us already know--climate change deniers do not have science on their side. What's extra interesting is that the Heartland Institute has the self-awareness to know that.

Quote:

When it comes to all this, the comparison to “Climategate” springs to mind, but there’s one enormous difference: Climategate was manufactured, a made-up controversy (what I call a manufactroversy) that had no real teeth — as was its failed sequel. The emails released weren’t damning at all, and didn’t show scientists tinkering with or faking data. As much as the media made of it, as much as climate change denial blogs played them up, it has been shown again and again that Climategate was all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

These new documents, though, look different, especially given that quote above. The next few days should be very interesting as people start digging into them, especially if they prove to be authentic.

And how ironic! It was the Heartland Institute themselves who played up Climategate quite a bit. Back in 2009 [they] were trumpeting Climategate...

Well, so have these emails been confirmed? Are they real? Signs point toward yes.

The news about Heartland Institute just took a decidedly odd turn. Recently, internal documents leaked from the far-right group revealed their antiscience agenda, including their funding strategy, donor list, and most startlingly a paper outlining their strategy to "dissuade teachers from teaching science".

When these documents were posted, Heartland started threatening the sites hosting them, as well as bloggers who wrote about them including a 71-year-old veteran). This part is very important: Heartland has made repeated claims that the strategy paper is a fake.
Now, the leaker has outed himself: Peter Gleick, a research scientist with the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, which among other things investigates the impact of hydrology on human health and how climate change plays into it.

In his admission, Gleick says he initially received the Institute’s internal documents in the mail anonymously. Given their potential impact, he tried to confirm their reality. How he did so, though, is something of an issue:

"In an effort to [confirm the accuracy of the documents], and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name."

In other words, Gleick used a false identity to get more information from Heartland itself. This is an interesting situation, to say the least. I’ll note that faking an identity is not necessarily wrong or illegal. And if there is a greater moral good involved, like exposing dirty dealings on issues that have a major impact on people’s lives — say — it might even be understandable. On the other hand, if he impersonated someone real, then this may be a situation of identity theft. There’s also the question of whether he did everything he could to find out the veracity of the documents before taking the path he did. I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t have all the information, so I don’t really have an opinion on this. On the other hand I have very little doubt that how people come down on this point will depend very strongly on where they stand on the reality of climate change.

However, how he obtained this information is not really the point. The information on those documents and their veracity is paramount. In his article, Gleick continues:

"The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication."

Emphasis added. Note that Gleick is explicitly saying the strategy document about the Heartland Institute trying to dissuade the teaching of science is in fact real, despite the claims from Heartland saying it’s not. He is also saying he did not make any alterations, so again he is claiming they are actual Heartland Institute internal documents. Heartland has indeed admitted that nearly all of the documents are in fact real, but maintain the strategy document is a fake.

From the standpoint of an outside observer, this boils down in some ways to a he-said-she-said situation. Heartland says the document is a fake. Gleick says it is not. While people on both sides have made arguments for and against its authenticity, the actual evidence we have from both sides is circumstantial. Unless the strategy document contains some sort of traceable information, or the Heartland Institute’s files are opened, there may not be any way to know for sure. However, Gleick has said he can explicitly confirm the documents are the same. I expect there will come a time when he’ll have to do so publicly.

I, like Phil Plait, want to see the hard evidence...the emails Gleick received and their certified origins. However, unlike the debunked "Climategate" that Heartland touted and continues to abuse, Climategategate has legs. The deniers have been outed. They don't want science teachers teaching science. Now can we all finally stop listening to the garbage they spew?

How did I know that someone would use the method of obtaining the emails as a means of ignoring the content of the emails? Why were you OK with the methods of obtaining the East Anglia University emails but not these? And as far as "identity theft" is concerned here...soliciting emails to confirm the details of an act of conspiracy to commit fraud is a far cry from ruining someone's life by destroying one's credit or committing heinous crimes in one's name.

And yes, Frank, of course Heartland is calling the memo a fake. However, Dr. Gleick has confirmed that it is NOT a fake and that it actually WAS part of the official documents that were emailed to him BY HEARTLAND.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

I'd say the ones committing fraud are those passing "climate change" and "evolution" off as actual works of science. This is generally the same crowd that tried to commit the fraud of passing Keynesianism off as economics too...and "social contracts" as legitimate political philosophy.

I'd say the ones committing fraud are those passing "climate change" and "evolution" off as actual works of science. This is generally the same crowd that tried to commit the fraud of passing Keynesianism off as economics too...and "social contracts" as legitimate political philosophy.

I suggest you get out more. There's a whole world out there you don't understand.

Maybe the other side is going to learn to play hardball, for once. I'm all for that. And not just with the climate change issue either. The field is wide open.

Karl Rove, Frank Luntz etc... we can all play that game.

Bring it on, I say.

Look, I have no problem with whistle-blowing. And while I don't want anyone intercepting my mail, I'm not saying this guy's identity theft is any worse than hacking the computers that started Climategate (unless Climategate's leak came from inside, making it a whistle-blowing.)

But if you're going to go on for years here about the problems with privacy, false flag operations, conspiracies and the abuses of the Patriot Act, you will indeed have to explain how using identity theft to gain corporate documents is an acceptable strategy. For any side.

Because I'm pretty sure the authors of the Patriot Act truly believe that "sometimes people have to go outside of usual M.O, and around the usual channels, in the cause of liberty and truth."

Learn what the science is and maybe then you can see if your concerns are due to misconceptions and religious indoctrination. Until then, I'm not going to participate in another evolution straw-man beating contest like we've had many times before with fellow scientifically ignorant folks like Fellowship or Jazzguru.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

1. There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

a static fossil record;

true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;

a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;

observations of organisms being created.

2. This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;

How would this ever be determined?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;

Such as? How would this ever be determined?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

observations of organisms being created.

LIke how? Live and in-person? Right in front of your eyes? Like that?

P.S. It might be better to backup and define what you mean by "evolution" and the "theory of evolution". The definitions will likely matter much.

Sounds like you need to read a good science book on evolution. Or, you could follow that link to that Berkeley site higher up the thread. Either way, you are demonstrating here a fundamental lack of knowledge--and that's OK. Just admit it and learn something.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Sounds like you need to read a good science book on evolution. Or, you could follow that link to that Berkeley site higher up the thread. Either way, you are demonstrating here a fundamental lack of knowledge--and that's OK. Just admit it and learn something.

Not at all.

The term "evolution" can be a bit vague and ambiguous. I'm asking you to give me your definition of it, so I can have a clearer understanding of your perspective. You never know, we might actually agree on something here.

You do this every thread you're involved in. It's so predictable and why I had you on ignore for so long. Bombard folks with so many questions attempting to lead people to some gotcha point you think you can make.

You implied evolution isn't science. I contend that it indeed is and can be falsifiable. You ask me how and I show you a few examples. Yet, you aren't satisfied there. You bombard me with questions that either demonstrate you don't understand evolution and need to read a fucking science book on the topic or you are trying to get me to answer something you already know? What purpose would there be for the latter? Catching me in some perceived contradiction because biology is not my domain of expertise does NOT hurt the science of evolution. Demanding that I be the arbiter of biology knowledge for you also seems silly because, again, biology is not my field of expertise. For that, READ A FUCKING SCIENCE BOOK.

If you still truly believe that no evidence could exist that if found would falsify evolution, you don't understand the science. No amount of berating me will change that.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

You do this every thread you're involved in. It's so predictable and why I had you on ignore for so long. Bombard folks with so many questions attempting to lead people to some gotcha point you think you can make.

You implied evolution isn't science. I contend that it indeed is and can be falsifiable. You ask me how and I show you a few examples. Yet, you aren't satisfied there. You bombard me with questions that either demonstrate you don't understand evolution and need to read a fucking science book on the topic or you are trying to get me to answer something you already know? What purpose would there be for the latter? Catching me in some perceived contradiction because biology is not my domain of expertise does NOT hurt the science of evolution. Demanding that I be the arbiter of biology knowledge for you also seems silly because, again, biology is not my field of expertise. For that, READ A FUCKING SCIENCE BOOK.

If you still truly believe that no evidence could exist that if found would falsify evolution, you don't understand the science. No amount of berating me will change that.

Go read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth Or Coyne's Why Evolution is True or Fairbanks' Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA. If you don't want to read a whole book, that Berkeley link is pretty damn good. Read it. Learn something. Get back to me after you have.

I bet you won't do any of that because not only are you morally bankrupt but also completely intellectually dishonest. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. I'll gladly cop to it if you do.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Sounds like you need to read a good science book on evolution... Either way, you are demonstrating here a fundamental lack of knowledge--and that's OK. Just admit it and learn something.

Everything he needs to know about evolution he learned from his pastor... he doesn't need ANY more information than that!

Reading science texts?!?!... bah!!!... if it ain't in the Bible, then it didn't happen!!!

No, seriously MJ... you need to educate yourself...

Climate change is real... it has happened over and over and over again in the last several millions of years. There is hard evidence to support this... in geologic records (rock strata all over the world and ice strata from the polar regions.)
Whether or not humans have any meaningful impact on the climate is DEFINITELY open for discussion... but the fact that the climate changes over time is just that... fact.

As for your opinions on evolution ... well... lets just say it shows a complete lack of understanding of biology, chemistry, physics and how the universe is KNOWN to work and leave it at that.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

Look, I have no problem with whistle-blowing. And while I don't want anyone intercepting my mail, I'm not saying this guy's identity theft is any worse than hacking the computers that started Climategate (unless Climategate's leak came from inside, making it a whistle-blowing.)

The original incident that started this climategate fiasco was NOT scientific fraud. It concerned leaked internal emails between meteorologists/climatologists etc in which disparaging remarks were made regarding skeptics of the "human factor of climate change/global warming" or the entire premise of global warming regardless of cause. Then it was taken out of context, blown up and sensationalized by the corporate media, and the rest is history.

The Heartland Institute scandal is wholly different ballgame... It involves the practice of abandoning the scientific method in favor of systematic propagandizing and indoctrination of K-12 kids. That is NOT education. That is NOT science. That is NOT OK.

Quote:

But if you're going to go on for years here about the problems with privacy, false flag operations, conspiracies and the abuses of the Patriot Act, you will indeed have to explain how using identity theft to gain corporate documents is an acceptable strategy. For any side.

Identity theft is not OK either. But it is a MINOR infraction compared to what this Heartland Institute appears to be guilty of. It's like comparing a speeding ticket to vehicular manslaughter while DUI.

Quote:

Because I'm pretty sure the authors of the Patriot Act truly believe that "sometimes people have to go outside of usual M.O, and around the usual channels, in the cause of liberty and truth."

We only can interpret what you give us to interpret, MJ. If you weren't so unwilling to share your actual beliefs in detail, we wouldn't have to fill in the gaps. Our vision of you is quite falsifiable. Ante up the fucking evidence to disprove it.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

HaHaHa ... the MJ of the gaps. Anytime theirs a gap in our knowledge or understanding, we can just invoke MJ to tell us what to fill those gaps with... no need to study, research, or think... I'm sure the Bible has an answer!

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

KingOfSomewhereHot, you surprise me. From some of your other posts I would have thought you to be above that sort of childishness.

I guess I'm wrong.

My childishness comes and goes.

But if you don't like "childishness".... then why would you believe in Santa Clause? ... and if you DON'T believe in Santa Clause... then why do you choose to believe in "God" (as presented in some religious text.)...
The evidence for "God" is EXACTLY THE SAME as the evidence for Santa Clause.
For that matter... the evidence for the Easter BUNNY is also exactly the same as the evidence for "God".
Other than hearsay and man-made writings, there is no evidence to lead one to believe a god exists.

So... you engage in childishness (belief in fairy tales), you should expect to be treated like a child.
(yes... your arguments in this thread (against climate and evolution) all seem to be based on a Biblical God and the teachings of the Bible. (or a handful of other religious texts... based on dogma rather than observation.)

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

But if you don't like "childishness".... then why would you believe in Santa Clause? ... and if you DON'T believe in Santa Clause... then why do you choose to believe in "God" (as presented in some religious text.)...
The evidence for "God" is EXACTLY THE SAME as the evidence for Santa Clause.
For that matter... the evidence for the Easter BUNNY is also exactly the same as the evidence for "God".
Other than hearsay and man-made writings, there is no evidence to lead one to believe a god exists.

So... you engage in childishness (belief in fairy tales), you should expect to be treated like a child.
(yes... your arguments in this thread (against climate and evolution) all seem to be based on a Biblical God and the teachings of the Bible. (or a handful of other religious texts... based on dogma rather than observation.)

The evidence for "God" is EXACTLY THE SAME as the evidence for Santa Clause.

Actually, The story of Santa Claus is based on a real person, St. Nicholas. His name morphed into Santa Claus because his story was brought to North America by the Dutch who can't pronounce words properly.

Christians tell their children about the real person and the generosity his story conveys, and secular idiots tell their kids to watch NORAD track his sleigh on Christmas Eve.

In a similar vein, we teach our kids that the world shows elements of design that could never have happened randomly. Secularists plug their fingers in their ears and shout that if you use death as a vehicle for achieving perfection and add lots and lots of time, a bunch of nothing will explode and ultimately create everything randomly, in the most stunning, mathematically-precise detail.